Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.

[Doobedoo]

List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States

Over the last century, the United States government has often provided, and continues to provide today, financial assistance, education, arms, military training and technical support to numerous anti-leftist and anti-Islamist authoritarian regimes across the world. A variety of reasons have been provided to justify the apparent contradictions between support for dictators and the democratic ideals expressed in the United States Constitution.

Prior to the Russian Revolution, support for dictators was often based on furthering American economic and political priorities, such as opening foreign markets to American manufacturers. Following the rise of communism, the United States government also began to support authoritarian regimes that it felt were combating movements aligned with communism, including socialist and democratic socialist movements, especially in Latin America.[1][2] Such assistance continued despite the belief expressed by many that this contradicted the political ideals espoused by the US during the Cold War.[3] Support was also geared toward ensuring a conducive environment for American corporate interests abroad, such as the United Fruit Company or Standard Oil, especially when these interests came under threat from democratic governments.[4][3] Support for authoritarian regimes has been justified under various ideological frameworks as well, including the Truman Doctrine, the Kirkpatrick Doctrine and the "War on Drugs".[4]

From the 1980s onwards, the United States government began to fear that its interests would be threatened by the increasingly popular Islamist movements in the Middle East, and began to work to secure cooperative authoritarian regimes in the region, while isolating, weakening, or removing, uncooperative ones.[5] In recent years, many policy analysts and commentators have expressed support for this type of policy, with some believing that regional stability is more important than democracy.[6][7] The United States continues to support authoritarian regimes today. However, international relations scholar David Skidmore believes that increased public pressure is motivating a shift away from supporting authoritarian regimes, and towards supporting more consensual regimes instead.[8]

Spoiler: Regimes supported past and present

1991–present

Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev; Ilham Aliyev[9][10]
1992–present

Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev[11][12]
1959–present

Singapore People's Action Party[13][13][14]
1984–present

Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah[15][16][17][18]
2011–present

Vietnam Trương Tấn Sang[19]
2014–present

Thailand Prayut Chan-o-cha[20]
1994–present

Tajikistan Emomali Rahmon[19]
2006–present

Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow[19]
1945–present

Saudi Arabia House of Saud[21][22][23]
1999–present

Bahrain Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa[24]
1972–present

Qatar House of Thani[25][26]
1970–present

Oman Qaboos bin Said al Said[23]
1954–present

Jordan Hashemite Dynasty[27][28]
1971–present

United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates[29]
2014–present

Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi[30]
1777–present

Morocco Alaouite dynasty[31]
1999–present

Djibouti Ismaïl Omar Guelleh[32][33]
1979–present

Equatorial Guinea Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo[19]
1982–present

Cameroon Paul Biya[34][35]
1990–present

Chad Idriss Déby[36]
1986–present

Uganda Yoweri Museveni[37]
2000–present

Rwanda Paul Kagame[38]

Past regimes.

1876–1911

Mexico Porfirio Díaz[42] During the Porfiriato, tensions between the U.S. and Mexico were high.
1929–2000

Mexico Institutional Revolutionary Party[43]
1932–1944

El Salvador Maximiliano Hernández Martínez[44]
1933–1949

Honduras Tiburcio Carías Andino[45]
1950–1958

Venezuela Marcos Pérez Jiménez[46]
1908–1935

Venezuela Juan Vicente Gómez[47]
1898–1920

Guatemala Manuel Estrada Cabrera[48]
1931–1944

Guatemala Jorge Ubico[48]
1948–1956

Peru Manuel Odria[49]
1952–1959

Cuba Fulgencio Batista[50]
1930–1961

Dominican Republic Rafael Trujillo[51] Later overthrown with at least some aid from the CIA.[52]
1954–1986

Guatemala Efraín Ríos Montt and other Juntas[53][54][55]
See also: 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
1963–1982

Honduras Oswaldo López Arellano and other Juntas[56][57]
1979–1982

El Salvador Revolutionary Government Junta of El Salvador[58]
1971–1978

Bolivia Hugo Banzer[59]
1973–1985

Uruguay Civic-military dictatorship of Uruguay[60][61]
1976–1983

Argentina National Reorganization Process[62][63]
1964–1985

Brazil Brazilian military government[41][64]
1936–1979

Nicaragua Somoza family[65]
1957–1971

Haiti François Duvalier[66]
1971–1986

Haiti Jean-Claude Duvalier[66]
1968–1981

Panama Omar Torrijos[67]
1983–1989

Panama Manuel Noriega[67] Later overthrown by U.S. in Operation Just Cause in 1989.
1954–1989

Paraguay Alfredo Stroessner[68][69]
1973–1990

Chile Augusto Pinochet[70][71]
1992–2000

Peru Alberto Fujimori[72]
1948–1960

South Korea[73] Syngman Rhee
1958–1969

Pakistan Ayub Khan See also: Pakistan–United States relations during the Cold War era.
1961–1979

South Korea Park Chung-hee[74]
1979–1988

South Korea Chun Doo-hwan[75]
1955–1963

South Vietnam Ngo Dinh Diem[76] Later assassinated in a U.S.-backed coup. See also: Cable 243, Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem.
1970–1975

Cambodia Lon Nol[77]
1969–1971

Pakistan Yahya Khan[78][79][80]
1941–1979

Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi[81][82] See also: 1953 Iranian coup d'état.
1965–1986

Philippines Ferdinand Marcos[83][84]
1978–1988

Pakistan Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq[85]
1963–1967

Iraq Abdul Salam Arif, Abdul Rahman Arif[86]
1982–1990

Iraq Saddam Hussein[87] Later seen as an enemy of the U.S. in the Gulf War and deposed in the Iraq War. See: United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war.
1967–1998

Indonesia Suharto[88][89] See also: Allen Lawrence Pope.
1949–1953

Syria al-Za'im-Shishkali-al-Hinnawi Junta[90][91][92] See: Husni al-Za'im, Adib Shishakli, Sami al-Hinnawi.
1999–2008

Pakistan Pervez Musharraf[93]
1990–2016

Uzbekistan Islam Karimov[19]
1990–2005

Kyrgyzstan Askar Akayev[94]
1990–2012

Yemen Ali Abdullah Saleh[95]
1969–1985

Sudan Gaafar Nimeiry[96]
1978–1991

Somalia Siad Barre[97]
1980–1990

Liberia Samuel Doe[98]
1991–2012

Ethiopia Meles Zenawi[19]
1965–1997

Zaire

Democratic Republic of the Congo Mobutu Sese Seko[99][100]
1982–1990

Chad Hissène Habré[101]
1981–2011

Egypt Hosni Mubarak[102]
2012–2013

Egypt Mohamed Morsi[103]
1948–1994

South Africa National Party (South Africa)[104][105]
1987–2011

Tunisia Zine El Abidine Ben Ali[106]
1936–1975

Spain Francisco Franco[107] At times opposed diplomatically because of fascist leanings. See: Francoist Spain.
1933–1974

Portugal António de Oliveira Salazar[108] See Estado Novo (Portugal)
1941–1945

Soviet Union Joseph Stalin[109] Later considered an enemy of the US. See Cold War.
1948–1980

Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito[110] See Informbiro period.
1967–1974

Greece Greek military junta[111]
1980–1989

Turkey Turkish military junta[112]
1969–1989

Romania Nicolae Ceaușescu[113]
1941–1975

Republic of China Chiang Kai-shek[114]
1948–1957

Thailand Plaek Phibunsongkhram[115]
1963–1973

Thailand Thanom Kittikachorn[116]
1958–1963

Thailand Sarit Thanarat[117]

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3Wkn...n_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States.html

 

[Dis86]

Oh god he's one of those...

 

[dowie]

Great, more walls of text from Doobedoo...

 

[Doobedoo]

Oh god he's one of those...

Which bits have you read and what do you think?

 

[Doobedoo]

Great, more walls of text from Doobedoo...

Plenty of material for you to read through I could just play you a few videos from Chomsky if you'd prefer.

You can cross reference how much of this has been shown to you through the media if you like.

 

[dowie]

Russian reporter Borodin dead after mystery fall

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43781351

We had a poster the other day apparently unaware of the level of state control of Russian media and the rather worrying numbers of journalists killed when they upset the kremlin. Instead he just deflected by posting lots of videos and walls of text about propaganda. Now he's doing the same re some CIA nonsense or something.

 

[dowie]

Plenty of material for you to read through I could just play you a few videos from Chomsky if you'd prefer.

You can cross reference how much of this has been shown to you through the media if you like.

I've not read it, why not engage in discussion instead of spamming the thread with multiple posts like that.

 

[Kenai]

I've not read it, why not engage in discussion

Don't pretend like you and everyone else doesn't already know the answer

 

[Doobedoo]

We had a poster the other day apparently unaware of the level of state control of Russian media and the rather worrying numbers of journalists killed when they upset the kremlin. Instead he just deflected by posting lots of videos and walls of text about propaganda. Now he's doing the same re some CIA nonsense or something.

I saw what you posted as has anyone else. Now here's the other side of the coin and as you were saying, Litvinenkos father is slightly nuts or deliberatly misleading when he said he thinks the Cia has had a hand in his sons death.

 

[Doobedoo]

I've not read it, why not engage in discussion instead of spamming the thread with multiple posts like that.

Why not read the material yourself rather than rely on the media to tell the story to you?

 

[dowie]

I saw what you posted as has anyone else. Now here's the other side of the coin and as you were saying, Litvinenkos father is slightly nuts or deliberatly misleading when he said he thinks the Cia has had a hand in his sons death.

What does that have to do with a Russian journalist being found dead?

 

[Doobedoo]

What does that have to do with a Russian journalist being found dead?

Then discuss it if you must I'm more of a big picture person. But deflect away.

 

[Kenai]

I found this an interesting read

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the Galloper's part to make each individual point before skipping on to the next (especially if they cite from a pre-concocted list of Gallop arguments), a refutation of the same Gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it's always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again).

 

[dowie]

Then discuss it if you must I'm more of a big picture person. But deflect away.

I'm not deflecting from anything, you've posted a bunch of links/walls of text in reply to no one in particular and concerning stuff about the CIA in Lagos etc..etc..

Why not read the material yourself rather than rely on the media to tell the story to you?

the material is mostly irrelevant stuff you've spammed the thread with

 

[Doobedoo]

I'm not deflecting from anything, you've posted a bunch of links/walls of text in reply to no one in particular and concerning stuff about the CIA in Lagos etc..etc..



the material is mostly irrelevant stuff you've spammed the thread with

It's not wall of text it multiple articles from various sources spanning a number of years all pointing in the same direction. The way some talk on here is if anything bad is the result of Russian intervention or direct action, yet, we are the doers of no wrong, their information is lies and propaganda and ours is the truth and the only truth.

That is just utter nonsense as I have shown as others have shown and will continue to show. Instead of taking a backwards step and acknowledging that we have done wrong in the past, we have got in wrong in the past and can or are getting it wrong now. We just put fingers in ears, head in sand and carry on down the same old beaten track only looking up to throw stones at people who are willing to challenge the status quo.

I am not your enemy and you are not mine.

 

[dowie]

It's not wall of text it multiple articles from various sources spanning a number of years all pointing in the same direction. The way some talk on here is if anything bad is the result of Russian intervention or direct action, yet, we are the doers of no wrong, their information is lies and propaganda and ours is the truth and the only truth.

That is just utter nonsense as I have shown as others have shown and will continue to show. Instead of taking a backwards step and acknowledging that we have done wrong in the past, we have got in wrong in the past and can or are getting it wrong now. We just put fingers in ears, head in sand and carry on down the same old beaten track only looking up to throw stones at people who are willing to challenge the status quo.

I am not your enemy and you are not mine.

So basically deflection.. someone criticises freedom of the press in Russia and instead you try to conjure up a very dubious false equivalence by spamming the thread with stuff about the BBC, some youtube videos on propaganda... half of the posts aren't even replying to anyone in particular but are just you posting some other article.

 

[Doobedoo]

So basically deflection.. someone criticises freedom of the press in Russia and instead you try to conjure up a very dubious false equivalence by spamming the thread with stuff about the BBC, some youtube videos on propaganda... half of the posts aren't even replying to anyone in particular but are just you posting some other article.

No that is your opinion and rather trying to learn something your deflecting yourself.

We have a very highly respected scholar who has explained very clearly the the use and methods of propaganda used by the west, and all you want to do is go nope not us it's only them. Now this has a very direct or indirect effect on topics like this one. It effects what you believe, on what information you choose to take in and your attitude towards it. No one wants to believe that Goverments and media have a vested interest in what information is released and the management of public perception to it. That includes Russia too but as "we" take in almost exclusively western media it's this which takes a higher precedent.

Perception management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception_management

Perception management is a term originated by the US military.[citation needed] The US Department of Defense (DOD) gives this definition:

Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all levels to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator's objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection,[1] operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.[2][not in citation given]

"Perception" is defined as the "process by which individuals select, organize, and interpret the input from their senses to give meaning and order to the world around them".[3] Components of perception include the perceiver, target of perception, and the situation. Factors that influence the perceiver:

• Schema: organization and interpretation of information based on past experiences and knowledge
• Motivational state: needs, values, and desires of a perceiver at the time of perception
• Mood: emotions of the perceiver at the time of perception

Factors that influence the target:

• Ambiguity: a lack of clarity. If ambiguity increases, the perceiver may find it harder to form an accurate perception
• Social status: a person's real or perceived position in society or in an organization
• Impression management: an attempt to control the perceptions or impressions of others. Targets are likely to use impression management tactics when interacting with perceivers who have power over them. Several impression management tactics include behavioral matching between the target of perception and the perceiver, self-promotion (presenting one's self in a positive light), conforming to situational norms, appreciating others, or being consistent.[3]

Strategies
There are nine strategies for perception management. According to Kegon Thomas, these include:

1. Preparation – Having clear goals and knowing the ideal position you want people to hold.
2. Credibility – Make sure all of your information is consistent, often using prejudices or expectations to increase credibility.
3. Multichannel support – Have multiple arguments and fabricated facts to reinforce your information.
4. Centralized control – Employing entities such as propaganda ministries or bureaus.
5. Security – The nature of the deception campaign is known by few.
6. Flexibility – The deception campaign adapts and changes over time as needs change.
7. Coordination – The organization or propaganda ministry is organized in a hierarchical pattern in order to maintain consistent and synchronized distribution of information.
8. Concealment – Contradicting information is destroyed.
9. Untruthful statements – Fabricate the truth.[5]

 

[dowie]

all you want to do is go nope not us it's only them.

No I haven't - I think you should perhaps consider what people have actually posted and not what you think their views are, you're just attacking straw men and yet again there is another wall of text.

 

[Hagar]

@Doobedoo, I am sure you are a very good political science student or similar??, able to generate these walls of text to obfuscate any attempt at argument. I come from a different angle.

I have lived through the Cold War at school, college and as an adult. I was at college at the time of Vietnam so have a jaundiced or critical view of US world politics. I have also an equally jaundiced and critical view of the USSR, the subjugation of millions of Eastern European citizens. The failed projects leading to disasters for Russia and the USSR.

Neither the CIA nor the KGB have covered themselves in past glory. However in my view (and I am quite well read) the Russians are still trying to use the old soviet model against the west (Europe and the USA). This will not work out for them as the world has moved on from the 20th century, but Putin has not.

 

[StriderX]

What? How has Putin not moved on, if he hadn't, the abilities they have wouldn't be newsworthy.

It's the West that never prepared itself for the inevitable digital war, we've paid for it dearly with especially (and strangely ignored in comparison) Chinese IP theft. Obviously we can't play dumb anymore and is rightly responding.